Apollo Hardware Spotted!

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
The thing that always puzzled me about the moon landings is that these men were getting massive doeses of radiation wether it be from the Van
Allen belt, solar flares, moon shine(the surface of the moon has higher radiation levels than open space due to high energy protons from the sun
colliding with atoms on the surface creating xrays and gamma rays) or just traveling through open space.

(emphasis added)

Well, THERE'S your problem!

Although there were - as you cite - many sources of radiation, the cumulative dosage during the Apollo missions
could in no way be classified as "massive".

We could, if we wanted to, play the same game here on Earth: In your home, you are exposed to radioactive radon gas coming up through your basement
or foundation, the isotope in your smoke alarm, carbon-14 from your plants & pets, Fukushima fallout and cosmic rays. If I hold out my hand (or even
if I don't), it gets hit by at least one such particle every second. Here is a neat
illustration of the radiation that surrounds us.

As for the specific radiation sources you cited:

Van Allen Belts Even if the astronauts orbited continuously within the Van Allen Belts, it would have taken days to build-up a truly unhealthy
dose. However, they did not orbit within the belts, nor did they even traverse the densest part of any of them. They went around them, as shown in
these plots:

Solar flares Basically, the moon-missions avoided solar flares the same way that I avoid having my camping trip rained-on*. I watch the
weather, plan on not going if the conditions aren't right, and keeping the trip short (within the predicted good weather window). Unexpected events
can occur, but the odds are - by definition - against it (and the astronauts were aware of the risk).

"Moon shine" This is a phenomenon that (like the recently-discovered 3rd Van Allen Belt) is so weak it wasn't discovered until fairly
recently. How weak? Well, remember that the Law of Conservation of Energy still applies. The radiation generated by these particle collisions
cannot be greater than energy of the particles themselves. In other words, if the solar radiation isn't enough to cause damage, the secondary
radiation probably won't either. Which brings us to...

Just traveling through open space The Soviet Union had planned to send cosmonauts around the Moon in their Zond spacecraft. Prior to doing
this, they sent several unmanned Zonds on circumlunar trajectories to verify that it was safe from an environmental and equipment point of view.
Here is their report on the cosmic ray measurements.

The comparison of the dosage evaluations with the permissible values allows the conclusion that, should no solar flare occurs (sic), seven-day
flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view.

(The Soviet manned Zond flights were cancelled for political reasons)

All of this said, whenever one talks about the long-term effects of radiation exposure, you have to deal with probabilities and the stick problem of
establishing a causal link. For example, if you have a 1-in-100 chance of getting leukemia, and radiation exposure triples that chance, you still
only have a 3-in-100 chance of contracting the disease. Also, if you do contract leukemia, how do you establish that it was due to the
radiation exposure and not from your baseline odds?

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
Yet not one of them had any negative heath effect associated with radiation exposure.

Factually incorrect. Alan Shepard died of leukemia and Jack Swigert died of bone cancer. Draw your own conclusions.

*For the record, the only time I have ever been rained-on while camping was the 1976 Sierra Conference on Astrophysics in Tuolumne Meadows. The date
was set, so we toughed it out.

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
The thing that always puzzled me about the moon landings is that these men were getting massive doeses of radiation wether it be from the Van
Allen belt, solar flares, moon shine(the surface of the moon has higher radiation levels than open space due to high energy protons from the sun
colliding with atoms on the surface creating xrays and gamma rays) or just traveling through open space.

(emphasis added)

Well, THERE'S your problem!

Although there were - as you cite - many sources of radiation, the cumulative dosage during the Apollo missions
could in no way be classified as "massive".

We could, if we wanted to, play the same game here on Earth: In your home, you are exposed to radioactive radon gas coming up through your basement
or foundation, the isotope in your smoke alarm, carbon-14 from your plants & pets, Fukushima fallout and cosmic rays. If I hold out my hand (or even
if I don't), it gets hit by at least one such particle every second. Here is a neat
illustration of the radiation that surrounds us.

As for the specific radiation sources you cited:

Van Allen Belts Even if the astronauts orbited continuously within the Van Allen Belts, it would have taken days to build-up a truly unhealthy
dose. However, they did not orbit within the belts, nor did they even traverse the densest part of any of them. They went around them, as shown in
these plots:

Solar flares Basically, the moon-missions avoided solar flares the same way that I avoid having my camping trip rained-on*. I watch the
weather, plan on not going if the conditions aren't right, and keeping the trip short (within the predicted good weather window). Unexpected events
can occur, but the odds are - by definition - against it (and the astronauts were aware of the risk).

"Moon shine" This is a phenomenon that (like the recently-discovered 3rd Van Allen Belt) is so weak it wasn't discovered until fairly
recently. How weak? Well, remember that the Law of Conservation of Energy still applies. The radiation generated by these particle collisions
cannot be greater than energy of the particles themselves. In other words, if the solar radiation isn't enough to cause damage, the secondary
radiation probably won't either. Which brings us to...

Just traveling through open space The Soviet Union had planned to send cosmonauts around the Moon in their Zond spacecraft. Prior to doing
this, they sent several unmanned Zonds on circumlunar trajectories to verify that it was safe from an environmental and equipment point of view.
Here is their report on the cosmic ray measurements.

The comparison of the dosage evaluations with the permissible values allows the conclusion that, should no solar flare occurs (sic), seven-day
flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view.

(The Soviet manned Zond flights were cancelled for political reasons)

man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.

Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space", but
those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by showing
that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint
Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of
the belts.

Can you please provide the data that corroborates your assertion that the points made by 'Saint Exupery' in his post are wrong, just so we can confirm
the veracity of your assertions?

edit on 4/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.

Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space",
but those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by
showing that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint
Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of
the belts.

Can you please provide the data that corroborates your assertion that the points made by 'Saint Exupery' in his post are wrong, just so we can
confirm the veracity of your assertions?

edit on 4/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them
had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong.
I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer. I wasn't right and I learned something. Isn't that how this is
all works anyway? Or are we just here to ridicule people that make mistakes? Maybe so people stay uninformed about a subject because they are afraid
of being ridiculed and called names and then put into a group and labeled as a nut.

you just have to have to look for them .....really really really really .. closely.. but they are invisible to any telescopes currently and will have
to scour the pics that are available.. good hunting with that

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.

Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space",
but those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by
showing that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint
Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of
the belts.

Can you please provide the data that corroborates your assertion that the points made by 'Saint Exupery' in his post are wrong, just so we can
confirm the veracity of your assertions?

edit on 4/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them
had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong.
I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer.

That is precisely how I interpreted your question - as a neutral statement trying to understand information that you had (that turned-out to be
false). I hope I didn't come across as condescending. For such a complex subject as space radiation, short answers really aren't the most helpful
ones, and I do tend to ramble-on.

Incidentally, the form in which you wrote your question was very helpful in writing a response. If someone had asked, "What about space
radiation?" then the grumpy answer would have been, "What about it?" Instead, you singled-out what you believed the overall problem to be
(massive radiation dose) and what the contributing factors in this you understood to be (VABs, flares, etc.). That made it easy to address your
points individually.

By all means, keep asking questions! I'll do my best to answer, time (and a certain 5-year old) allowing. I hope it helps.

I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them
had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong.
I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer. I wasn't right and I learned something. Isn't that how this is
all works anyway? Or are we just here to ridicule people that make mistakes? Maybe so people stay uninformed about a subject because they are afraid
of being ridiculed and called names and then put into a group and labeled as a nut.

Wait a minute, dont go anywhere.
Lets talk about Solar flares.

Because people would have you believe that no major Solar Flares occurred during an Apollo missions.
They will even tell you that NASA had the technology to predict Solar Flares and this they based
sending Astronauts to the moon.

Now what if I told you that during the Apollo missions several MAJOR solar happened?
And I mean "X" class flares.

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.

Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space",
but those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by
showing that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint
Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of
the belts.

Wait a minute.
This trajectory that was linked, are the numbers officially from NASA?
Second, are you telling me that all Apollo missions never flew through the heart of the VABs?
And if they never flew through the heart of the VABs, why not?

I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them
had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong.
I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer. I wasn't right and I learned something. Isn't that how this is
all works anyway? Or are we just here to ridicule people that make mistakes? Maybe so people stay uninformed about a subject because they are afraid
of being ridiculed and called names and then put into a group and labeled as a nut.

Wait a minute, dont go anywhere.
Lets talk about Solar flares.

Because people would have you believe that no major Solar Flares occurred during an Apollo missions.
They will even tell you that NASA had the technology to predict Solar Flares and this they based
sending Astronauts to the moon.

Now what if I told you that during the Apollo missions several MAJOR solar happened?
And I mean "X" class flares.

"Solar flares are classified as A, B, C, M or X"

So "X" being the highest indicator.

How would you react to such information?

The only public recored that I could find about SPEs only go back to 1978, so I wouldn't be able to make an educated response but I will point out
that one of the biggest SPEs ever recored happend in aug. 1972. I'm certainly aware that they can't be predicted with any accuracy. You can figure
out the probability of one occurring, but that's far from predicting when and what direction.

The only public recored that I could find about SPEs only go back to 1978, so I wouldn't be able to make an educated response but I will point out
that one of the biggest SPEs ever recored happend in aug. 1972. I'm certainly aware that they can't be predicted with any accuracy. You can figure
out the probability of one occurring, but that's far from predicting when and what direction.

In conclusion, flare happened during the Apollo missions.
Dont let anyone tell you that they didnt.
They will probably tell you that the flares didn't emit dangerous protons, or the Apollo craft could
protect the astronauts from proton events, lol, but worrying about that is for another day.

Can give it a shot. One in particular I like to bring up is that business with James Irwin and Scott on the Apollo 15 feigned journey. In that case
they claimed the astronauts became hypokalemic(low potassium) and that accounted for their cardiac arrythmias, specifically premature ventricular
contractions. So how was it that they determined that? A blood draw on the moon? It is so absurd. I'd encourage you to read NASA's story about
the same. I can supple a little criticism if are curious about details from my end.

Well doc, they did draw their blood. When they got back, but nevertheless the two of them had K+s in the 2.8 range. I suggest you get your facts
straight before criticizing. Also, their fecal specimen's showed the two moonwalkers to be incredibly potassium avid. They were pumping Na+ for K+
in their colons like there was no tomorrow which is exactly what you'd expect under the circumstances. So again, get your facts straight.

One last point about the K+ and then I'll shut up. At least temporarily. They had everyone on spironolactone after and follow up K+s were more on
the order of 3.9 or 4.0 . Then the stool specimens on Duke and Young showed essentially no K+ loss. From avid to an essential K+ vacuum. And all
that is very well documented. The thing about Borman being diagnosed with SAD is a legit criticism. But they did that to save embarrassment given his
voluminous diarrhea. Most are unaware that Lovell and Anders aspirated that stuff. It may have ended the program had word gotten out.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.